§ 3.5 p.m.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received replies from the chairmen of nationalised industries to the consultation proposals sent to them by the Treasury on 20th December last; and if so, whether these replies include consideration of the position of their consumer councils.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)My Lords, the nationalised industries have commented collectively through the Nationalised Industries Chairmen's Group on the proposals referred to by the noble Baroness. Industries have also commented individually to their respective sponsor departments. With regard to consumer councils, a separate consultation note setting out proposals for legislation on nationalised industry consumer councils was issued on 22nd February. A number of the consumer organisations and industries concerned have commented. All comments are being taken carefully into account.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, I thank the Minister. I am aware of the last part of what he said. But may I ask him whether the comments made by the chairmen of the nationalised industries on the future of their consumer councils will be discussed between themselves, the consumer councils and the departments concerned before the Government finalise any proposals? Secondly, may I ask him: is it not correct that the chairmen of the nationalised industries have attacked most strongly the consultation proposals sent to them by the Treasury?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, I cannot imagine a situation where things are put out for discussion, comment and consultation which would not have the effects that the noble Baroness suggests; and of course it is inevitable that in any consultation some people will be happier than others.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, will the Government consider, after these consultations have taken place and after the Government have taken the views into account, issuing their own discussion paper so that a debate may take place upon its generality prior to the Government coming forward with legislation?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, the case for legislation is surely comprehensibly set out in the consultation document. Proposals in that document are intended to result in clear guidelines within which industries remaining within the public sector will have freedom to operate as successful commercial businesses. This will benefit the industries themselves, 1144 their customers and the nation as a whole. And of course such benefits cannot be achieved unless the customers and consumers are happy.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, the Question refers to proposals from the Treasury to the chairmen of the nationalised industries. My I ask: does this mean that the Treasury now has separate and direct access to the chairmen of the nationalised industries in addition to, or separate from, the sponsoring departments?
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, since the paper referred to concerns two important matters in addition to the consumer interest, which was referred to earlier—the question of new procedures for board appointments and also the capitalisation of reserves—which will have important consequences on the reports of the nationalised industries, will the Minister assure us that before any steps are taken in these directions, legislation will be necessary to accomplish these objectives?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, the Government are of course still prepared to consider detailed comments on the NICC document and on the main document; but I think that the point which the noble Lord has put to me relating to board appointments ranges a little wide of the original Question.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, would the noble Earl be kind enough to answer my question? Does this mean that the Question is incorrectly phrased or do the Treasury have direct consultation now with the nationalised industries?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, I answered it as clearly as I could by saying that the situation is unchanged, since the sponsoring Minister remains the sponsoring Minister.
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, may I press the Minister for an assurance as to whether legislation will be required in order to implement the proposals in the paper to which reference has been made?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, final decisions on the timing and content of the proposed legislation have still to be taken. But, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question, the case for legislation is comprehensibly set out in the consultation document.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, will the noble Earl answer the second part of my supplementary question? Is it not correct that the chairmen of the nationalised industries have attacked most strongly the consultation proposals submitted to them by Her Majesty's Treasury?
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to answer a little more clearly? Does the Treasury, or does it not, now have direct access to the chairmen of the nationalised industries?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, I have made it very clear that the sponsoring Ministers remain the sponsoring Ministers.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonYes, my Lords. I wish to reiterate the question asked by my noble friend Lord Beswick. Is the Treasury responsible? Is the Treasury in direct contact with the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and does the Treasury have dominance over the nationalised industries, as compared with the sponsoring departments?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, it is a nonsensical question. The fact of the matter is that the sponsoring Minister remains the sponsoring Minister. The idea that the Treasury is not in contact with the sponsoring Minister is ludicrous.